That's why NASA paid $7,500 for Apollo 11's TV star on Hollywood's
Walk of Shame.

Armstrong: Mars Easier Voyage Than Moon.

By Sean Yoong, Associated Press, Space.com, 06 September 2005.

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP)—Neil Armstrong said Tuesday that a manned
mission to Mars will not happen for at least 20 years—but the effort
might be easier than what it took to send him to the moon in 1969.

Lt Neil Armstrong's TV actor star on Hollywood's Walk of Shame:
http://piratenews.org/hollywood-apollo11-star-neil-armstrong72.jpg
http://piratenews.org/hollywood-walkoffame-apollo11-400-72dpi.jpg

The first man to walk on the moon noted that scientists must develop
better onboard spacecraft technology and stronger protection shields
from harmful space radiation before a manned flight to the Red Planet
can be accomplished.

"It will certainly be 20 years or more before that happens,"
Armstrong said during a global leadership forum.

"It will be expensive, it will take a lot of energy and a complex
spacecraft. But I suspect that even though the various questions are
difficult and many, they are not as difficult and many as those we
faced when we started the Apollo (space program) in 1961."

Armstrong, 75, who seldom appears at public functions or grants
interviews, commanded NASA's Apollo 11 mission in 1969. He left the
space program in 1971 to teach aeronautical engineering at the
University of Cincinnati.

The current U.S. space initiative envisions returning astronauts to
the moon within 15 years and then launching manned flights to Mars
and beyond at an unspecified date. The initiative will cost hundreds
of billions of dollars.

Armstrong said setting foot on the moon was "a wonderful feeling,"
especially because he believed there was only a 50 percent chance of
a successful lunar landing.

"I was elated, ecstatic and extremely surprised that we were
successful," Armstrong said, responding to an audience member's
question about how he and fellow astronaut Buzz Aldrin felt during
their first moments on the moon.

"We would have loved the opportunity to take some time to enjoy it,
but we had the inevitable checklist and experiments that had to go
on. So it was back to business, back to work as soon as we
congratulated each other."

http://www.space.com/news/ap_050906_mars_armstrong.html

============================================

Walk of shame

Sidney Morning Herald
March 6, 2004

Hollywood's stars once glistened on Tinseltown's pavements, now the
gloss has gone writes Campbell Smith.

Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin smelled of urine. So did Neil Armstrong and
Michael Collins. And a cigarette butt had been ground into
Aldrin's 'd'. The embossed brass of their names was dull, spotted and
pitted in parts, as if it had been hacked with a chisel. Shiny black
pavement surrounded the monument then ran down the hill towards
Sunset, before tumbling over the kerb into a brown-puddled gutter.

No doubt when the crew of Apollo 11 received their star on
Hollywood's Walk of Fame the marble was clean, the brass shiny and
the pavement smelled a lot better. After all, they had been granted a
space on the corner of Hollywood Boulevard and Vine Street, the
spiritual centre of Tinseltown.

Back in the golden years, all the major studios were nearby, and this
was the place where directors, producers and movie stars came to
drink and be scandalous.

But those days ended long ago, when the studios packed up and moved
to suburbs with lower rents and less iconic names like Burbank and
Century City. Hollywood Boulevard is now a B-grade scene featuring a
cast of junkies and peep show hustlers, its lowest point the empty
intersection assigned to Aldrin and his crew.

The rotting of Tinseltown has been slow and remorseless. In 1960, the
local chamber of commerce was so alarmed by the decline in tourism it
came up with the idea of a "Walk Of Fame", a series of 2500 brass
stars embedded in the pavement bearing the names of Hollywood's
biggest celebrities. It was hoped that the monikers of Monroe, Bogart
and co might add the dash of glamour needed to prop up ailing local
enterprises.

But the Walk failed in these mercantile objectives. As we strolled up
Hollywood Boulevard on a hot summer afternoon, most of the stores
were shuttered and those that were open sold either porn or made-in-
China Hollywood souvenirs.

You'd think that Hollywood would have no problems filling 2500 stars,
but some 43 years after the Walk was conceived, more than 300 of them
are still vacant (perhaps potential candidates are put off by the
$US7500 fee).

And in order to fill the other 2150-odd places the chamber has had to
apply a loose definition of the word "fame". So for every Rita
Hayworth or Marlon Brando there are about a dozen Samuel Z. Arkoffs
(the producer of seminal cinema such as Drag Strip Girl and The
Amazing Colossal Man). John Tesh, Drew Carey and Kenny G inexplicably
have their own stars, as do the Rugrats and Rin Tin Tin. Siegfried
and Roy also have one, though we were disappointed to find that Roy's
cantankerous white tiger had yet to receive its due credit.

While the names might sometimes be unfamiliar, they do provide some
useful orientation points for exploring the Boulevard. Turn right
just after Jimmy Cagney and you can see the Knickerbocker Hotel,
where Harry Houdini's widow tried to contact him at a celebrity-
filled rooftop seance.

Right beside Nat King Cole there's the Musso and Frank Grill, the
legendary Tinseltown watering hole where Nathaniel West and William
Faulkner got loaded on martinis in the '40s and predicted a swift,
apocalyptic end to the movie industry. Up a little, just past Dave
Garroway (no, I don't know who he is either) is the corner where
Horace Wilcox founded the settlement of Hollywood in the late 1800s.
Horace was a prohibitionist who dreamed of building a community that
reflected his clean-living ideals.

Fortunately, Horace had passed on before they opened Frederick's of
Hollywood across the road, a lingerie store specialising in the red
and synthetic. Frederick's also has a free museum where you can gaze
at Zsa Zsa Gabor's girdle and Madonna's pointy brassiere. Directions?
Just look for Dyan Cannon.

We emerged from the most desperate part of Hollywood around James
Caan, and by Cass Daley the sidewalk was crowded and the shops
legitimate. We were hot and thirsty, so we crossed Kay Francis and my
wife headed into McDonald's to buy a drink.

I stayed outside under the shade of the palm trees to watch the
crowd. I noticed a homeless man with withered legs lower himself out
of his wheelchair and on to the ground. He took a plastic tray from
underneath the chair loaded with rags, sponges, two spray bottles and
a battered metal one. He took one of the bottles and a rag, pressed
his face almost into the pavement and began to clean Stephanie
Powers' star. Once finished, he dragged himself along the ground to
the next star, belonging to Luna Humberto, and cleaned it, too.

Done with Luna, he then pulled himself along to the next star, which
was right outside the doors to McDonald's. He regarded the star for a
moment before spraying it with the bottle and wiping it with the rag.
Then he went back to the tray and selected a different rag and a
battered metal bottle. Carefully, as if it were liquid gold, he
poured a thick polish on to the rag and diligently applied it to the
brass elements of the star. He waited patiently for it to dry, then
wiped it clean. The brass was gleaming. He then put the bottle and
rags back in their tray and moved onto the next star. I walked over
to what sort of name could command such special treatment. It was, of
course, Marilyn Monroe.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/05/1078378960732.html

============================================

NASA Nazis Moon USA

NASA Apollo 11 Digital Picture Library
"Digitally remastered by NASA" - See if you can find any stars or
rocket exahust from the LEM on the moon:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/images11.html

NASA Apollo Experience Report
SIMULATION of Manned Space Flight
Technical Note TN D-7112, 60 pages PDF
March 1973
Check out the "Moving-Base Simulator" and "simulation of 1,000 stars,
distant moon and 'spotlights'" with "modeling of the actual landing
sites enhanced with rocks and small craters of 0.02 inch"
with "collimated light source to simulate lunar-terrain shadows. As
the desired sun elevation angle increased above 12 degrees, the probe
shadow became very pronounced and the actual touchdown area was in
the shadow. Landing simulators used throughout the aircraft industry
are much less massive. A moving-base simulator is a device in which
the major components have physical motion. Training for the lunar
environment has been accomplished through the partial-gravity
simulator, the mobile partial-gravity simulator, the lunar landing
research facility and the LLTV.")
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/tnD7112Simulators.html

Collimate.
False reading of light. To direct in a straight line. To make light
rays parallel.
—Webster's New World Dictionary

===========================================

NASA's Lunar [Lunatic] Vision: The Devil's in the Details

[Hold on to your wallet!]

By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer
Space.com
05 October 2005

NASA's grand plan to revive human exploration beyond Earth orbit
relies greatly on utilizing a heritage of hardware from the soon-to-
be-scrapped space shuttle program.

The centerpiece of this system is a larger Apollo-like capsule. It
would haul four astronauts to and from the Moon, six crewmembers on
future missions to Mars, and deliver crew and supplies to the
International Space Station.

But to get things off the ground, factually, NASA is eying astronaut-
carrying and cargo-lofting launch systems that build upon space
shuttle components.

In some quarters, NASA's vision of exploration is an anti-doldrums
undertaking for the agency. Yet the plan is rife with technical
issues that need resolution. Others suggest that the strategy is dead
on arrival, or is sketchy at best.

Sporty slap

For the most part, editorial pundits have not been easy on NASA's
newly announced strategy.

Gregg Easterbrook is a senior editor of The New Republic, a
contributing editor of The Atlantic Monthly and a visiting fellow at
the Brookings Institution. He took a sporty slap at NASA in a column
he writes for, of all places, NFL.com – the official site of the
National Football League.

"NASA says it will take $104 billion and 13 years to build the
amazingly 1960s-like hardware. Let's see, that's a target of 2018 --
49 years after the first Moon landing," Easterbrook wrote.

"So half a century after America was able to land people on the Moon,
we'll be able to do it again. Imagine if you had declared in 1952, 49
years after Kitty Hawk, that for a mere $104 billion, you could build
a wooden flyer that would remain in the air for 12 seconds,"
Easterbrook proclaimed. "Isn't this Moon announcement awfully
similar?"

Workable solution

Putting those barbs aside, the NASA vision as unveiled last month by
NASA chief, Michael Griffin, is starting to undergo technical
critique.

"I think Griffin's team has come up with a truly workable solution
that really does make sense," said Jerry Grey, Director, Science and
Technology Policy for the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics (AIAA). Grey is also Visiting Professor of Aerospace
Engineering at Princeton University.

"Certainly there will be technical issues," Grey told SPACE.com, "but
in view of the current concerns over shuttle and station, the ever-
present budget constraints, the political issues, and the lofty long-
term goals -- which are indeed the right ones -- it would be hard to
find a better approach."

Given that, Grey continued, there are a host of technical issues that
must be dealt with.

Unproven features

For one, the use of a shuttle solid-rocket booster (SRB) as a main
stage will require extensive engineering, modeling, and flight-
testing, Grey said. "The structural, aerodynamic, vibration, and
other environmental conditions for an SRB having an upper stage and a
large, heavy, top-mounted payload are very different from those
involved in the current usage of these motors," he said.

Furthermore, an SRB has never flown in this configuration but has
always had the structural support of the external tank, Grey pointed
out. Also, integration of the upper stage and the top-mounted
payload, and providing the necessary electric power, guidance and
control, communications, and other "housekeeping" functions to the
upper stage and the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), raise a whole
host of technical requirements -- especially in validation and
verification -- that have never been addressed for the SRB, he said.

"So although by itself the SRB is a well-proven piece of hardware,
the new flight article will have many new and as yet unproven
features that have yet to be human-rated," Grey added.

Vacuum restart

Another hardware hurdle to be overcome is use of the Space Shuttle
Main Engine (SSME). Built for re-use, the SSMEs are in the NASA
strategy as an upper stage motor, as well as clustering five of them
for the heavy-lift booster.

Although well proven in its current usage, Grey said, both projected
applications of the SSME involve new technical matters that must be
addressed.

The SSME has never been used in an upper stage, which itself will
require a whole new design, and as yet not human-rated, Grey
said. "This will involve a new propellant feed system to the engine,
validation of a totally different set of environmental conditions
than the engine has experienced in the past, and almost certainly a
re-start capability -- in vacuum -- which involves a whole new set of
technical requirements."

"Remember, too, that although the engine has operated in vacuum
during part of the shuttle launch trajectory, it will now require not
only vacuum re-start, but also an initial chill-down and start under
vacuum conditions, Grey noted, utilization that will demand human-
rating, he said.

There's another issue of tasking the SSME to upper stage duty. The
SSME is now optimized for the shuttle launch trajectory, so they are
probably under-expanded for full vacuum operation. That isn't really
a technical problem, Grey noted, but it would give the engines a
lower specific impulse than that of a fully expanded liquid oxygen-
liquid hydrogen upper-stage engine.

Specific impulse is a performance measure for rocket propellants that
is equal to units of thrust per unit weight of propellant consumed
per unit time.

Engineering attention

Then there's the business end of the shuttle-derived heavy-lift
booster.

A shuttle orbiter is outfitted with a trio of SSMEs - a well-proven
engine configuration.

"The new five-engine SSME cluster, mounted on a stage that will
certainly be very different from the orbiter in its propellant feed
and thrust-vector control characteristics and its structural,
aerodynamic, and environmental behavior, will require considerable
engineering attention," Grey explained.

Grey said that the upper, or side-mounted, stage use of the SSME --
or whatever other alternative engine may be selected -- will also
require a new design approach.

"The payload characteristics are certain to be much different than
those of the CEV," Grey said. Lastly, the SSME is expensive and was
not intended to be expendable. "Keeping budget control on the
expenditure of six units on each flight might turn out to be an
issue."

Show me the money

Taking a step back from technical aspects of NASA's vision quest,
there's the subject of money.

Grey said that while he is supportive of the stated doctrine of
allowing the schedule of the whole program to be the "dependent
variable", there is an obvious budgetary impact.

"The only valid corollary to this doctrine is not to fix the total
budget, or even the budget for each element of the program," Grey
said, "but to fix the annual budget cap for the program as a whole.
That allows each mission date to move to the right as much as needed
to stay within that annual cap."

Grey offered a scorecard account for implementing the new NASA vision.

"I believe that all these technical issues, although perhaps more
extensive than NASA has as yet acknowledged, are all solvable," Grey
concluded. NASA's approach to focus vision into reality "is probably
the best that can be devised under the given set of conditions," he
said.

A missing piece

At a fundamental level, the NASA plan is "Apollo II: The Sequel",
observed Roger Launius, Chair of the Division of Space History at the
Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum in
Washington, D.C

"This architecture for reaching the Moon is certainly one that makes
possible a return, but it is also one among several approaches that
could have been successful," Launius told SPACE.com. "There is no one
right answer and I suspect that before the hardware is solidified
NASA will have to make modifications to the approach in response to
technical, schedule, political, or economic challenges," he said.

Launius said he sees a missing piece of the NASA blueprint. That is,
what is the rationale for taking on the challenge in the first place?
What are we going to do once we reach the Moon?

"If science is the driver, what scientific activities are going to
dominate? Decisions on this will affect the structure of the science
effort as a whole, the landing site selection, the nature of robotic
predecessors, the types of experiments developed, and a host of other
issues that require sustained thought and planning," Launius
suggested.

Political will or won't

The space historian said he hoped these activities would not be an
afterthought, as was too often the case during Apollo.

"The Apollo program was about flags and footprints, and it was
effective in helping to win the Cold War with the Soviet Union. The
Apollo leadership also managed to tack on some science activities,
but they were definitely afterthoughts," Launius recalled. "But those
times have passed, and we must move beyond the Apollo concept to
embrace a more engaging and sustained approach. I hope this program
is successful in doing this. I will be properly ecstatic if program
officials are successful in doing so," he said.

Leaping back to the Moon in 2018 will demand sustained political
will, Launius said. That will be a major challenge for NASA's current
chief, Michael Griffin, and perhaps especially for his successors, he
said.

"At a fundamental level, political will is the most critical
challenge facing those who wish to venture into space in this
century. It is even more significant than the technological issues
that also present serious challenges to returning to the Moon,"
Launius advised.

Governmental decision-makers, supported by the taxpaying public that
elects them, have to agree over the long haul that the expenditure of
funds for this exploration agenda is in the best interest of the
nation, Launius said. "Without that political will, discovery and
exploration cannot take place at an aggressive rate."

Historical trends

How real is the $104 billion price tag for NASA's Moon, Mars and
beyond manifesto?

While the funding profile for the initiative is modest, "historical
trends for earlier projects suggest that despite efforts to contain
costs, they will escalate in response to technical challenges
encountered in the project," Launius added.

Now toss in the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina rebuilding.

The NASA vision must compete for federal dollars with both those
priorities, and a host of other Congressional agenda items.

"As a person excited by the prospect of returning to the Moon, I am
thrilled that the United States is finally intent on moving beyond
Earth orbit," Launius concluded. "Like everyone, I am curious to see
how this plays out over the next few months as project definition
becomes more solid. The devil will be in the details."

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/051005_nasa_details
.html

===========================================

NASA to Unveil Plans to Send 4 Astronauts to Moon in 2018

By Brian Berger
Space News Staff Writer
Space.com
14 September 2005

WASHINGTON – NASA briefed senior White House officials Wednesday on
its plan to spend $100 billion and the next 12 years building the
spacecraft and rockets it needs to put humans back on the Moon by
2018.

The U.S. space agency now expects to roll out its lunar exploration
plan to key Congressional committees on Friday and to the broader
public through a news conference on Monday, Washington sources tell
SPACE.com.

U.S. President George W. Bush called in January 2004 for the United
States to return to the Moon by 2020 as the first major step in a
broader space exploration vision aimed at extending the human
presence throughout the solar system.

NASA has been working intensely since April on an exploration plan
that entails building an 18-foot (5.5-meter) blunt body crew capsule
and launchers built from major space shuttle components including the
main engines, solid rocket boosters and massive external fuel tanks.

That plan, called the Exploration Systems Architecture Study, was
presented by NASA Administrator Mike Griffin, his space operations
chief Bill Gerstenmaier and several other senior agency officials
Wednesday afternoon to senior White House policy officials, including
an advisor to U.S. Vice President Richard Cheney and the president's
Deputy National Security Advisor J.D. Crouch.

NASA's plan, according to briefing charts obtained by SPACE.com,
envisions beginning a sustained lunar exploration campaign in 2018 by
landing four astronauts on the Moon for a seven-day stay.

The expedition would begin, these charts show, by launching the lunar
lander and Earth departure stage (essentially a giant propulsion
module) on a heavy-lift launch vehicle that would be lifted into
orbit by five space shuttle main engines and a pair of five-segment
shuttle solid rocket boosters.

Once the Earth departure stage and lunar lander are safely in orbit,
NASA would launch the Crew Exploration Vehicle capsule atop a new
launcher built from a four-segment shuttle solid rocket booster and
an upper stage powered by a single space shuttle main engine.

The CEV would then dock with the lunar lander and Earth departure
stage and begin its several day journey to the Moon.

NASA's plan envisions being able to land four-person human crews
anywhere on the Moon's surface and to eventually use the system to
transport crew members to and from a lunar outpost that it would
consider building on the lunar south pole, according to the charts,
because of the regions elevated quantities of hydrogen and possibly
water ice.

One of NASA's reasons for going back to the Moon is to demonstrate
that astronauts can essentially "live off the land" by using lunar
resources to produce potable water, fuel and other valuable
commodities. Such capabilities are considered extremely important to
human expeditions to Mars which, because of the distances involved,
would be much longer missions entailing a minimum of 500 days spent
on the planet's surface.

NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle is expected to cost $5.5 billion to
develop, according to government and industry sources, and the Crew
Launch Vehicle another $4.5 billion. The heavy-lift launcher, which
would be capable of lofting 125 metric tons of payload, is expected
to cost more than $5 billion but less than $10 billion to develop,
according to these sources.

NASA's plan also calls for using the Crew Exploration Vehicle,
equipped with as many as six seats, to transport astronauts to and
from the international space station. An unmanned version of the Crew
Exploration Vehicle could be used to deliver a limited amount of
cargo to the space station.

NASA would like to field the Crew Exploration Vehicle by 2011, or
within a year of when it plans to fly the space shuttle for the last
time. Development of the heavy lift launcher, lunar lander and Earth
departure stage would begin in 2011. By that time, according to
NASA's charts, the space agency would expect to be spending $7
billion a year on its exploration efforts, a figure projected to grow
to more than $15 billion a year by 2018, that date NASA has targeted
for its first human lunar landing since Apollo 17 in 1972.

===========================================

http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/apollo11/iworked.html

BOEING PHANTOM WORKS' APOLLO PROGRAM

"I worked as a field test and project engineer for the Mercury,
Gemini, Apollo and Skylab, and had the privilege of meeting all the
original astronauts. One thing I remember about working on Apollo was
how tough it was to work with NASA because they wanted eight sets of
all paperwork, no copies, all originals. I helped conduct the tests
for the Apollo lunar module ascent and descent engine. There were
hundreds of engine firings, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. NASA
would tease Grumman about using stone-age recording methods instead
of computer-analyzed test evaluation methods. During the Apollo 11
program, one of my tasks was to do a materials/flammability
inspection of each Command Module to make sure that in the
fabrication of the spacecraft, the materials met the NASA
requirements, and there were no flammability hazards built into the
spacecraft."
-BOEING.COM, Brought to you by those nice people at Boeing who built
a Lunar Lander rocket with zero rocket emmissions of invisible rocket
exhaust pollution, who kept zero copies of any paperwork evidence,
and who burned the Apollo 11 crew alive on the launch pad, and who
crashed 4 robot controlled airliners on 11 September 2001 without any
hijackers on the passenger lists and was paid a 25-Billion Dollars
bribe for hush money from the terrorist president of United States
Municipal Corporation who is sued under RICO Act for perping those
terrorist massacres
http://september911surprise.com

==========================================

NASA Nazis Moon USA

"The cost of each launch has turned out to be 100 times greater than
originally planned. Two of the first 113 flights ended in
catastrophe. The shuttle has a 1-in-56 chance of not making it back.
The FAA noted that if airlines had the same accident rate as the
shuttle, we would lose 40 airplanes every day."
-Chicago Tribune, "Disturbing Shuttle Discoveries"
http://chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-
0507310397jul31,1,7203153.column?coll=chi-navrailnews-
nav&ctrack=1&cset=true

"How are we going to get to the Moon when we can't even talk between
two buildings? I can't hear a word you're saying!"
-Gus Grissom, Apollo 1, burned alive on the launch pad during
a "routine" test

"No manned spacecraft now exists that can withstand the radiation
from the Van Allen belts, through which a craft must traverse to make
it to the Moon."
-SpaceDaily.com, "Lunar Ice Might have Changed Apollo's Legacy,"
March 9, 1998
http://spacedaily.com/news/lunar-98h.html

"I can't believe it!"
-Wife of Colonel Buzz Aldrin, commander, Apollo 11, July 20, 1969 as
her husband walked on the "moon" (lower case)

moon - 5. anything shaped like the moon - vi. 1 to behave in an idle,
dreamy, abstracted way, as when in love - Slang - to engage in the
prank of exposing one's buttocks in public - Webster's New World
Dictionary, 3rd College Edition

"Regarding the Apollo mission, I can't say 100% for sure whether
these men walked on the Moon. It's possible that NASA cut corners
just to be the first to allegedly go to the Moon. NASA could have
covered it up. If some of the film was spoiled, it's remotely
possible they may have shot some scenes in a studio environment to
avoid embarrassment."
-Dr. Brian O'Leary, Ph.D., Apollo astroNot, Fox TV - "Did We Land On
the Moon?"

AstroNot on moon:
"There's a lot of freebies on these simulations."
Mission Control (without a time delay):
"Roger that. We've got the boys in the backroom working overtime."
-NASA official videotape of Apollo moon walk

"Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin offered a spirited defense Wednesday
as to why he decked a pushy filmmaker who wanted him to swear on a
Bible that he really did go to the Moon. Eleven Apollo astronauts all
had non-space related fatal accidents within a twenty-two month
period of one another."
-AstroNots Gone Wild
http://moonmovie.com

"When I was at the Bohemian Grove, Neil Armstrong was there, just a
year after he stepped on the moon. His speech by the lake was
called 'The Food of The Future: Oil'. Honestly! Even the fat cats
around me were moaning on their way back to peeing on the redwoods. I
was more disappointed that Armstrong never mentioned the Moon once."
—Amazon.com review of Hollyweird's mockumentary "Teddy Bears' Picnic"
about Satanic Bohemian Grove presidential retreat and homosexual
nudist colony

"And they had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in
Hebrew was Abaddon, and in Greek, Apollyon. Abaddon and Apollyon mean
Destroyer."
-Revelation 9:11, Christian Bible

"These babies are huge, Sir! Enormous. Oh my God! You wouldn't
believe it. I'm telling you there are spacecraft out there, lined up
on the far side of the crater edge. They're on the Moon watching us."
-Colonel Neil Armstrong, Apollo 11, according to NASA-NAZI Dr Farouk
El Baz, Maurice Chatelaine of North American Rockwell, USSR's Dr
Aleksander Kazantzev, Dr Vladimir Azhaza, et al.

"I am not a crook!"
-felon Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon, prior to his resignation to avoid
impeachment, trial and conviction for burglery, conspiracy and
murders of FBI director J. Edgar Hoover and President John F. Kennedy
(pardoned by unelected pedophile pornographer "president"
Gerald "Magic Bullet" Ford aka Leslie Lynch King Jr)

"A 'con man', a 'confidence man', is the best-dressed, the best-
spoken. He has to be since his intention is to separate you from your
money, from your freedom. This is his 'M.O.' - his modus operandi.
Our representatives in Washington DC remind me of the best conmen.
This is a lesson we all have to learn."
-Detective Frank Serpico, NYPD, ThePowerHour.com, GCN Radio Network,
GCNlive.com, WBCR 1470am, 2002

VIDEO: Operation Northwoods - James Banford from ABC News reported on
Pentagon's Operation Northwoods plot to perp domestic terrorism in
USA to blame a foreign nation and "justify" invasion, declassified in
2000, reported by ABC News, "Friendly Fire - U.S. Military Wanted to
Provoke War - U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities,"
on May 1, 2001, and Baltimore Sun, "NSA sheds light on secrets - U.S.
terror plan called invasion pretext," April 24, 2001
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2005/10/7209.php
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1
http://infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Sun_bamford.htm

FUBAR (Fucked Up Beyond All Repair) - UsaFO Flying Saucers - The
secret truth behind U.S. built flying wing disc aircraft based on
Nazi Foo Fighters in Operation Paperclip
http://USAFFlyingSaucers.com

===========================================

Pirate News TV
Winner "Best Music Video"
"We Never Went to the Moon" by UFOetry
Los Angeles Music Awards 2005
http://piratenews.org/hollywood.html
http://ufoetry.com

VIDEO DOWNLOAD:
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2005/09/6737.php
(ZERO rocket exhaust from LEM "blast off" on "moon")

FULL LENGTH VIDEO DOWNLOAD:
NASA Nazis Moon USA - Watch Luciferian Apollo astroNots refuse to
swear on a Bible they went to the Moon. Watch Apollo astroNot confess
NASA may have faked Apollo. Watch NASA star warriors video illegal
aliens from outer space. Watch Bill Cooper and 11 murdered Apollo
astronauts get revenge from the grave. Watch Apollo lunar landers fly
without rocket exhaust. Watch Masonic Mafia flags waving on the moon
set. See moon craters at Area 51 in Las Vegas.
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2005/09/6737.php

NASA Nazis Moon USA
http://geocities.com/nasa_moons_usa

Fair Use per 17 USC 107